Suggestion About Deck Size and Maximum # of Silver/Gold Cards

+
I'm thinking it would probably be healthier just to bump up the minimum size for decks and adjust the g/s ratios accordingly rather than scale them.
 
DirkAustin;n7245010 said:
Randomness cant be avoided in a card game, thats almost the point of the game. Make a strategy, maybe even more than 1, work with that. Have a back up plan if all else fails.
You just described the perfect problem, 80% of the deck can be drawn, thats a sad statistic. Who wants to play a game where its about getting your entire deck out?
This game is already unique in that sense that we dont have Life Points, i think more cards in the deck would give this game more longevity and more balance between top players and lower tier ones.

Gwent isn't MTGO. In this kind of game, reserving cards and exhausting the enemy is a major strategy. Deliberately losing is a key part of winning. 25 minimum is good. If you don't want to play that way, put as many as you want it in. My deck is about 30, and my win rate is pretty darn good (about 75% win).

Very often insisting on 25 cards in gwent can be more detrimental than helpful.
 
4RM3D;n7243180 said:
First of all, what's the point of having a deck with 40 cards? You would always want as few cards as possible to have a greater chance of getting the cards you'll need.

You can have guaranteed win against me for example, i played this game for a while now and NEVER won against a 40 cards deck.
Not only that but they always have the perfect answer and always play more golds and silvers than me, so there might be something there, i doubt the draws are RNG.
 
Scaling wouldn't work that well. The minimum 25 cuts the fat so you can strategize. I think CDPR increased the deck size to 40 to combat against decks specialized for milling. Though I've only played 1-2 milling decks that only amounted as adequate.
 

Guest 4226291

Guest
I wholeheartedly agree. I think the minimum shouldn’t raise but the amount of silvers gold may increase. Not fully sold on it though
 
Not very keen on this, mainly because I don't see top decks using it. A deck is still only going to draw 13 cards over three rounds (absent card draw effects), so the more cards you have the less likely you are to draw your best ones. This applies even if you're allowed to run 6 golds, since not all golds are created equal. It's possible decks slightly bigger than 25 cards will see action simply because you can add cards like Alzur's Double Cross to a deck without much cost (I would certainly play 26-card decks if I could run 7 silvers), but not at the ratio in the OP.

Since the impact is low I think developer time is better spent elsewhere.
 
I think this will be a good idea when there are more cards as of now most decks you will have to put garbage cards to put in your decks. And with it 40 there will still be the meta. I like the meta where it is now where I can still win with a fun deck. I'm worried when there are more cards there will be the meta deck that if you don't play these three decks you will lose.
 
On a side note, with the introduction of Saskia: Dragonfire, my suggestion will no longer see the light of day. A shame, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
 
I dont know if it was suggested before but if the minimum deck number increases , beside gold and silver increase they should also draw more cards in starting hand , for example 2,3 more depending on how limit is. That should fix the issue of not drawing more from your deck.
 
Top Bottom